“Very Bad Form” — What Six Independent Reports Tell Us About the Pentagon’s Meeting With the Vatican

Six independent reports and two round-ups now exist about the January 22 meeting. Three official denials have followed. The contention at the center of all of it comes down to a single word: Avignon.

Thank you for reading! Letters from Leo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Before you read on: Pope Leo XIV has asked Americans to contact their members of Congress and demand an end to the war in Iran. Answer the pope’s call in one click at standwithpopeleo.com, an app we built to make it as easy as possible

On Monday, April 6, The Free Press published a report by the Italian journalist Mattia Ferraresi alleging that Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby had summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre — Pope Leo XIV’s ambassador to the United States — to the Pentagon on January 22 for a closed-door meeting that Vatican officials described as “a bitter lecture.”

According to the report, a U.S. official invoked the Avignon Papacy, the fourteenth-century period when the French Crown used military force to subjugate the bishop of Rome.

The story sat for two days. That was strange for an allegation of this magnitude — the Pentagon threatening the pope’s ambassador with a medieval reference to papal captivity.

On Wednesday, I was among the first to follow up after discovering the article online, publishing my own report based on independent sourcing that corroborated two of The Free Press’s core claims: that the word “Avignon” was used and that Vatican officials understood it as a threat.

By Thursday and Friday, six more outlets had weighed in — NBC Chicago, the Pillar, the Catholic Herald, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, Vox, and Religion News Service.

Six independent reports and two round-ups now exist about the January 22 meeting. Three official denials have followed. The contention at the center of all of it comes down to a single word: Avignon.

I want to walk through what we know, where the accounts diverge, and where I stand. All links above are gift subscriptions, so you can read each account in full. If you stay until the end, I’ve created a chart that explains where everything stands.

What Everyone Agrees On

The basic facts are not in dispute.

On January 22, 2026, Colby and his team hosted Cardinal Pierre and his team at the Pentagon. The meeting followed Pope Leo’s January 9 address to the diplomatic corps, in which the pope warned that “a diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force.” Pentagon officials read the speech as a direct challenge to the administration’s foreign policy.

Both sides confirm that the meeting took place and that the subjects included morality and foreign policy. The Pentagon released photos of Colby and Pierre shaking hands and sitting around a small table with associates.

Agreement ends there.

The Press Accounts

Six outlets have published original reporting on the substance of the meeting, each drawing on different sources.

The Free Press, citing unnamed Pentagon and Vatican officials, described the meeting as “a bitter lecture” in which officials told Pierre that the United States “has the military power to do whatever it wants” and that the Church “had better take its side.” One U.S. official invoked the Avignon Papacy.

NBC Chicago, citing a source described “as close to Pope Leo XIV,” called the meeting “most unpleasant and confrontational.”

The Pillar, citing senior Vatican officials, reported the meeting was “tense” at times and that U.S. officials were “aggressive” and “bullying.” The Pillar added that Pierre “made himself heard, too” and that there was “no question of anybody threatening anyone.” The Pillar could not confirm the Avignon reference.

The Catholic Herald reported that derogatory comments were made — but not by Colby. The Herald’s sources placed the offending remarks with another Defense Department official in the room. Pierre told the Catholic Herald directly: “I would prefer not to speak.”

The Washington Post, citing people on both sides, called the meeting “unusual” and “not a walk in the park.” A senior Vatican official described it as “a frank and direct dialogue on issues where the distance between the Vatican and the United States is evident and clear.”

In a remarkable detail, Pentagon officials, the Post reported, “attempted to justify military activity” and framed American force as “a legitimate path to peace.”

Fr. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education, compared the meeting’s dynamics to the February 2025 confrontation between Trump and Zelensky at the White House.

The Financial Times, citing Francesco Sisci of the Appia Institute, reported that the meeting was intended as a “friendly message” to the nuncio but “went wrong” after Pierre said Pope Leo would follow his own course guided by Church values. At that point, another official — not Colby — invoked Avignon.

“It might have gotten a bit intense,” Sisci told the FT. “It went wrong. It was very bad form. Somebody misspoke.”

Two additional outlets published detailed analyses synthesizing these accounts.

Vox’s Christian Paz described the episode as “almost perfectly calibrated to raise temperatures not only between the White House and the Vatican, but within the US Catholic community, and within the MAGA movement.” Paz noted that the political fallout threatens to split the religious right through 2026 and into Vice President Vance’s potential 2028 presidential bid.

Religion News Service reported a notable detail: the Apostolic Nunciature — Pierre’s own office — “did not dispute the Free Press’s reporting” in its statement, saying only that “meetings with government officials are a standard practice for the Nuncio.”

The Official Pushback

Three official statements have contested these accounts.

The Pentagon called the Free Press’s characterization “highly exaggerated and distorted,” insisting the meeting was “a respectful and reasonable discussion.”

Ambassador Brian Burch, the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, posted on X that he had spoken with Cardinal Pierre after the report. According to Burch, Pierre called the media characterizations “fabrications” that were “just invented.” Pierre described the meeting as “frank, but very cordial,” Burch said.

The Holy See Press Office released a statement on Friday from its director, Matteo Bruni, confirming the meeting was “part of the Pontifical Representative’s regular mission” and that “the narrative presented by certain media outlets regarding this meeting does not correspond to the truth at all.”

Here’s how OSV put it:

“Prior to releasing the Vatican’s statement on the meeting, Bruni acknowledged The Free Press report in comments to reporters in Rome on April 9, but declined to comment on its accuracy at that time.

“Instead, Bruni pointed out that Pope Leo has ‘never stopped speaking out’ on complex current issues, and referenced the pontiff’s words April 7, leaving Castel Gandolfo, when he condemned Trump’s threat to end Iran’s ‘whole civilization’ as ‘truly unacceptable.’”

“The pope’s words are more recent,” he said.

Where I Stand

Despite our political differences, I consider Ambassador Burch a friend, and these are serious pushbacks. Any fair-minded reader should weigh them.

Cardinal Pierre, speaking through two intermediaries — Burch and the Holy See Press Office — has contested the accounts.

Context, however, is relevant.

The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, under Burch’s leadership, was caught earlier this year, selectively omitting Pope Leo’s explicit warnings about Venezuelan sovereignty to create the false impression of papal support for U.S. military intervention.

I reported on that episode at the time. The embassy’s record of accurately conveying the pope’s words deserves consideration. I would welcome Cardinal Pierre speaking for himself, and so far, he has not done so publicly.

When the Catholic Herald reached him directly, he said only, “I would prefer not to speak.” There are understandable reasons for that silence. Pierre is a statesman in the final stage of his tenure; his successor, Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, has already been named.

Leaving fresh turmoil for the man who follows you through the door would be unwise for a diplomat of Pierre’s stature.

Fr. James Martin, a consultor to the Vatican’s communications department, wrote on X that he has “no doubt” government officials “could have spoken bluntly, even rudely” to Pierre — but that a “consummate diplomat” like the cardinal will likely never say what happened on the record.

After the pushback emerged, I reached out to my sources on two continents once again. They stood firm. The word “Avignon,” they said, was used, and many in the Vatican saw it as threatening.

Three outlets — The Free Press, the Financial Times, and Letters from Leo — have now independently confirmed the Avignon reference through separate sourcing.

The Catholic Herald and The Pillar corroborated that the meeting was contentious, though neither confirmed that specific claim. The Washington Post’s own sourcing landed somewhere in the middle: “unusual” and “not a walk in the park.”

No one has retracted or modified their original reporting.

I have assembled this one-page document so you can see every account side by side and draw your own conclusions.

Here’s what’s clear. The meeting was unconventional and tense. I have no doubt about either of those things.

One Vatican official invoked the February 2025 confrontation between Trump and Zelensky as a comparison — a proxy that suggests how the encounter was received within the Vatican walls, even if I am not certain the Pentagon meeting reached that level.

As Vox noted, the political implications run deep, fracturing the religious right through 2026 and threatening Vance’s path to 2028.

What We Know: Press Accounts vs. Official Accounts

Press Accounts

The Free Press (April 6) — “A bitter lecture — the United States has the military power to do whatever it wants. The Church had better take its side.” One official invoked the Avignon Papacy. Sources: unnamed Pentagon & Vatican officials.

NBC Chicago (April 9) — “Most unpleasant and confrontational.” Source: described as close to Pope Leo XIV · Mary Ann Ahern.

The Pillar (April 9) — “Tense” at times. U.S. officials “aggressive” and “bullying” — but no threat confirmed. Pierre “made himself heard, too.” Avignon reference could not be verified. Sources: senior officials at Pentagon and Vatican Secretariat of State.

Catholic Herald (April 9) — Derogatory comments confirmed — but not from Colby. They came from another DoD official. Pierre told the Herald directly: “I would prefer not to speak.” Source: Pierre, directly.

Washington Post (April 10) — “Unusual” and “not a walk in the park.” Pentagon officials “attempted to justify military activity” and framed American force as “a legitimate path to peace.” Sources: senior Vatican official & person briefed on meeting · Natalie Allison, Anthony Faiola, Michelle Boorstein.

Financial Times (April 9) — Meeting went “wrong” after Pierre said Leo would follow his own course. Another official — not Colby — invoked Avignon. “It might have gotten a bit intense. It was very bad form. Somebody misspoke.” Source: Francesco Sisci, Appia Institute · Amy Kazmin.

Official Accounts

Pentagon (April 9) — “The Free Press’s characterization is highly exaggerated and distorted. The meeting was a respectful and reasonable discussion.” Source: Department of Defense spokesperson.

Ambassador Brian Burch (April 9) — Quoting Cardinal Pierre: media characterizations are “fabrications” that were “just invented.” Pierre described the meeting as “frank, but very cordial.” Source: U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, posted on X.

Holy See Press Office — Matteo Bruni (April 10) — “The narrative presented by certain media outlets regarding this meeting does not correspond to the truth at all.” Source: official statement.

---

St. Teresa of Avila said the truth may suffer, but it can never be put out. We will eventually know more than we know today. I am confident of that. I just don’t know how long “eventually” will last.

At Letters from Leo, we stand with every Catholic and person of goodwill who believes that the truth about what happens behind doors of power — at the Pentagon, at the Vatican, anywhere power is exercised in secret — belongs to the people of God.

In a time when official statements contradict independent reporting, the work of holding powerful institutions accountable has never mattered more.

This is the fastest-growing Catholic community in the country because people are hungry for a faith that refuses to look away — writing grounded in faith, in the dignity of the truth, and in the conviction that the Gospel demands transparency from the powerful, not silence from the faithful.

If you believe this work matters — Catholics and people of goodwill standing for human dignity and the truth — I am asking you to join us.

If you’d like to invest in our mission, here are three ways you can help this Easter season:

• Subscribe as a paid member to receive exclusive posts about the life and formation of Pope Leo and help sustain this newsletter.

• Donate with a one-time gift to fuel this project’s mission.

• Share this post (and Letters from Leo) with a friend who might enjoy it.

Paid subscribers get access to our exclusive biographical series on Pope Leo’s Life & Formation, our ongoing Epstein-Bannon Investigation, and the best of our full archive.

Whether you give $0, $1, or $1,000, your presence here matters — no matter your faith or your politics.

Thank you for reading. I’ll see you on the road.